Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:O'Hara, Maureen.jpg
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes. Voting period ends on 7 Mar 2015 at 03:26:18 (UTC)
- Reason
- Has recently won an Honorary Academy Award; typical glamour portrait for its day. I believe that last aspect was missed at its previous nomination - cf. Frances Farmer, Gene Tierney (1, 2), Leslie Howard for further examples of the style
- Articles in which this image appears
- Maureen O'Hara, Irish people (in collage)
- FP category for this image
- People/Entertainment
- Creator
- Unknown (studio publicity still)
- Support as nominator – Samsara 03:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose for now. Publicity stills such as this usually had the copyright notice on the reverse (if they had one at all). We cannot be certain that there was no notice without being able to check the reverse, and... sadly... Doctor Macro never uploads those. (Also, this strikes me as having had a pure white background added digitally) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- But FPC is not the place to address copyright concerns. Samsara 20:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't get where people came up with that idea. For an image to be featured, it must be free. WP:FP? #4 on Wikipedia. If it is not free, then it does not meet the criteria. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you're not willing to nominate it for deletion, then you haven't finished the job and you just make it look like you're actually trying to sabotage the nom for reasons that have nothing to do with the copyright status. If you really have concerns, I dare you to nominate it for deletion so we can do this job properly. Samsara 03:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, ABF much? Particularly ironic considering your own replies to Hafs in other nominations. I wrote a quick oppose, based on previous experiences with Doctor Macro stills (not posters; posters had their copyright notices on the front), about 2 minutes before stepping out to handle paperwork related to me registering for the doctorate program. I've barely been home for more than to sleep since 48 hours ago. Yes, I am perfectly fine with XFDing this. No need to dare me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- And are you saying you want the Hepburn case to be repeated? Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hepburn-afternoon.jpg ended with the deletion of an English-Wikipedia featured picture of the actress. If we'd looked at copyright more carefully during the nomination (at the time I was not as versed in copyright issues, hence my support there; you yourself appeared to consider the license within FPC's purview as well...), we'd have avoided such an embarrassment. I've learned my lesson. Has FPC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would simply like you to raise addressable issues, not throw around wild suspicions that you apparently cannot substantiate either way. Samsara 05:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Samsara, I think you are being unreasonable. Copyright concerns certainly are something that should be addressed here when they exist, and it is right and fair that we ask for a high level of certainty concerning the copyright status of images nominated at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- My concern was, and remains, addressable: we either delete this image (under the precautionary principle on Commons) or we confirm that the image was indeed published without a copyright notice. EBay is usually pretty good for that, though matching up the exact images is a sometimes thing. BTW, I'd have raised (and I believe I have raised) the same concern whenever I've seen these images come through FAC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Samsara, I think you are being unreasonable. Copyright concerns certainly are something that should be addressed here when they exist, and it is right and fair that we ask for a high level of certainty concerning the copyright status of images nominated at FPC. J Milburn (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- I would simply like you to raise addressable issues, not throw around wild suspicions that you apparently cannot substantiate either way. Samsara 05:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- If you're not willing to nominate it for deletion, then you haven't finished the job and you just make it look like you're actually trying to sabotage the nom for reasons that have nothing to do with the copyright status. If you really have concerns, I dare you to nominate it for deletion so we can do this job properly. Samsara 03:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - -- Armbrust I don't know about the rules, but the image, when I clicked on it states - nominated for deletion. This media file has been nominated for deletion since 26 February 2015 ... souldn't this be speedy close? Hafspajen (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- But FPC is not the place to address copyright concerns. Samsara 20:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Not Promoted --Armbrust The Homunculus 06:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
